Poll: How do you personally feel about the term cisgender?

[Metailurus]

So due to people constantly insisting on derailing my thread, designed to help broaden the understanding of transgender people, with a debate on this term I decided to start this one.

I have only one rule for this thread: Keep it civil and polite! So don't throw insults and false accusations around. That said debating the term is perfectly fine, so long as you follow the site rules.

My Opinion: I'm honestly not quite sure what what to think of the term now. I'm just kind of tired of it being debated back and forth to the point it's lost almost all meaning in my mind. I guess replacing it might be inorder.

So what do you all think? Discuss!

It's a minor insult thrown around by certain quarters used to imply that being normal is somehow not normal. Something that the social justice brigade seem to spend their entire lives doing. Pretty straightforward really.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Come to think of it (and apologies for going a bit off topic) why are trans people included with the lesbian/gay/bi group when, as we're saying, gender identity and sexual preference are two entirely different things? Seems like LGB and T should be two separate entities.

Not everyone in the LGB and T get along with each other, but most recognise that their struggles are rather similar, and so they have banded together for solidarity.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

The point you missed is that cisgender =/= straight/heterosexual, and perhaps you missed the fact that transgender =/= gay/lesbian. Gender identity and sexuality are different things. So calling a straight person cisgender would mean that they're straight, and have their gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. Homosexual people can be, and usually are cisgender. Plenty of transgender people are straight no matter which way you identify it compared to them. Why do people keep making this mistake?

Well, Therumancer did mention LGBT. I wonder if that muddies the waters a bit. Lumping trans people in with a group that can be identified as "not straight" can send the wrong message.

Come to think of it (and apologies for going a bit off topic) why are trans people included with the lesbian/gay/bi group when, as we're saying, gender identity and sexual preference are two entirely different things? Seems like LGB and T should be two separate entities.

This is gonna sound really cynical, but we get lumped in because we're a useful tool for political activism. Basically we can be used as a scape goat, or get our demands included in gay rights bills. Then when it's convenient to toss our demands out to make a bill more palpable to the politicians they throw us under the bus. Really if you look at the LGBT community, trans people are ignoring and leaving it in droves due to exclusion and mistreatment even there. The trans community by it self has gotten more done than the L&G groups would ever let us. Especially when L&G people make the argument that tran people are just confused gays and lesbians. They're basically including us in their community so they can silence us and erase us and our identities.

It's a minor insult thrown around by certain quarters used to imply that being normal is somehow not normal. Something that the social justice brigade seem to spend their entire lives doing. Pretty straightforward really.

Unfortunately it's used that way by a minority of loud outrage mongers. But it's also a medical and academic term to classify people who are not transgender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

 

[Ishigami]

Plain unnecessary.

The only reason I know of this term is because I watch some people on YouTube for entertainment purpose raging against mind-bogglingly silly SJW.
There is no application for this term in real life that I can think of, it is obscure to the general public and it describes a state that is considered normal by said general public.
Furthermore it is no real gender.

So yea: Pointless term invented probably (going on a limb here) by someone in gender studies to give a state a "scientific" description and then picked up by hipster twats and SJW.

 

[Kristoffer]

you're arguing that "Cis" is confusing? Again, I'd say that it's confusing to people who didn't pay attention in school, and frankly most of those people will never hear it anyway.

You serious?

I have no idea what kind of curriculum the term "cisgender" is part of, but none of my friends have heard of it, and we're all finishing up masters and doctorates...

 

[Hofstadter]

In a discussion regarding trans people, it is needed to distinguish between cis and trans. Its as simple as that.

God the drama you people generate.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There is no application for this term in real life that I can think of, it is obscure to the general public and it describes a state that is considered normal by said general public.

No application? How about when talking about someone who isn't trans?

And, what has society considering it normal got to do with anything? Now, sure, it might be something many take for granted, that's not a reason for resisting a word for it. Lots of things considered normal in various societies have names, it's hardly unusual.

 

[Charli]

Damaged, angry people are always going to turn something they're not into an insult. It's a result of 'othering' someone to define yourself as something better.

Really I think the term is fine, it was a term that maybe did need defining. I don't agree with the way some young vocal people are using it.

Cisgendered means precisely what it does. You're Cis. You identify with the gender you were born. That's it.

It's like using the term You're BLACK! As an insult... it really isn't an insult out of context, it's a statement of fact, but the way some people connect it with social commentary and previous experiences can stain the comment a bitter way.

So it's difficult to say, I don't believe there's anything wrong with the term existing, I do have some problem with the way people are using it however.

 

[Ariseishirou]

It just means someone who isn't trans. It's accurate and descriptive, and in no way offensive or "grand-standing". I am a female-born person who identifies as a woman; I am cisgender. Who cares? Why would I take offense to this, let alone to the degree that I demand someone change the term?

Though there is a kind of delicious irony in watching the usual suspects who rail and scream about those darned "SJWs" "taking offense" to everything and how being offended means nothing and doesn't mean that anything has to be changed... ...taking offense to this term and demanding it be changed.

I would recommend you take their advice on every other topic (that doesn't affect them, personally) and ignore the offended, here.

 

[Silvanus]

Plain unnecessary. [...]
There is no application for this term in real life that I can think of, it is obscure to the general public

Why would a term's relative obscurity make it any less valid as a term?

The "general public" are unaware of hundreds (or thousands) of specific terms used in specific circumstances. That's utterly irrelevant to whether the term is useful in those specific circumstances.

 

[Ishigami]

No application? How about when talking about someone who isn't trans?

It's always male or female. If the person is not trans then there is no reason to bring it up as everyone and their mom will assume that their gender is the same as their sex. In reality no cares about your gender anyway... people only care about your sex.

And, what has society considering it normal got to do with anything? Now, sure, it might be something many take for granted, that's not a reason for resisting a word for it. Lots of things considered normal in various societies have names, it's hardly unusual.

Because you would never bring it up. Ever.
No one cares that your gender is the same as your sex. Everyone will automatically assume that it is! Like everyone will assume that you are straight, because in 98% of the cases they are right about it.
And even by the off chance you did, guess what? You would need to explain the term which makes it useless to shorten the discussion anyway so you might start with the explanation right away.

Why would a term's relative obscurity make it any less valid as a term?

In our country a few years back (1999) some silly people invented a word to describe the state that you no longer want or need something to drink, that you are not thirsty. The reason is that in my native language we got a word for not needing or wanting anymore food but nothing for liquids. Basically they wanted to shorten the sentence "I'm not thirsty".
Of course to nobodies surprise no one uses that term or knows of its existence. (I'm not making this up so here it is: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitt )
If you now sit in a restaurant and the waiter wants to refill and you would decline using that term you would need to explain its meaning beforehand? doing that makes the term useless as you could have told the waiter that you are "not thirsty" in the first place.
It's a valid term I guesss? and utterly useless in real life.

The "general public" are unaware of hundreds (or thousands) of specific terms used in specific circumstances. That's utterly irrelevant to whether the term is useful in those specific circumstances.

Woohoo you got a term only someone in gender studies will use? bravo? the question was what I think of it and there you have it: Useless and unnecessary as without day to day application.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No application? How about when talking about someone who isn't trans?

It's always male or female. If the person is not trans then there is no reason to bring it up as everyone and their mom will assume that their gender is the same as their sex.

Why? Now, in many circumstances, sure, but would you assume that, for example, everyone posting in this thread is cis?

 

[Ariseishirou]

It just means someone who isn't trans. It's accurate and descriptive, and in no way offensive or "grand-standing". I am a female-born person who identifies as a woman; I am cisgender. Who cares? Why would I take offense to this, let alone to the degree that I demand someone change the term?

Though there is a kind of delicious irony in watching the usual suspects who rail and scream about those darned "SJWs" "taking offense" to everything and how being offended means nothing and doesn't mean that anything has to be changed... ...taking offense to this term and demanding it be changed.

I would recommend you take their advice on every other topic (that doesn't affect them, personally) and ignore the offended, here.

I think you, and it seems a lot of other people here aren't really aware of what offended means.

No ones offended by it, maybe a rare few but not on a scale that you or half the other people in this thread are claiming. It's not that the word offends someone or not, it's that most of the time you see it used online it's used as an insult or a slur. Annoying? Yes. Offensive? No.

The delicious irony is everyone going on about how suddenly the anti-SJW crowd is getting all offended at the word. When no one actually is. People are just pointing out how it's commonly used now, instead of it's actual meaning.

You might have a point if, the vast majority of the time, the so-called "offended" "SJWs" weren't doing exactly the same thing: pointing out that the way a word is used has become an insult rather than its original meaning, and asking that you not use it because of said meaning. As it stands what's going on here is identical, and kind of hilarious.

 

[Silvanus]

In our country a few years back (1999) some silly people invented a word to describe the state that you no longer want or need something to drink, that you are not thirsty. The reason is that in my native language we got a word for not needing or wanting anymore food but nothing for liquids. Basically they wanted to shorten the sentence "I'm not thirsty".
Of course to nobodies surprise no one uses that term or knows of its existence. (I'm not making this up so here it is: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitt )
If you now sit in a restaurant and the waiter wants to refill and you would decline using that term you would need to explain its meaning beforehand? doing that makes the term useless as you could have told the waiter that you are "not thirsty" in the first place.
It's a valid term I guesss? and utterly useless in real life.

Righto. Lots of words fail to gain traction in the general public. That's still not really relevant to words that are intended to be used in relatively specific contexts (such as discourses regarding gender identity; people within groups who regularly talk about that are fairly likely to know what 'Cisgendered' means).

Woohoo you got a term only someone in gender studies will use? bravo? the question was what I think of it and there you have it: Useless and unnecessary as without day to day application.

That applies equally to a vast, vast number of specialist terms. It's a ridiculous metric to use.

A huge number of legal terms, medical terms, scientific terms, technical terms and such don't have "day to day application". It's not necessary. They're intended for use within specific contexts.

 

[Ariseishirou]

It just means someone who isn't trans. It's accurate and descriptive, and in no way offensive or "grand-standing". I am a female-born person who identifies as a woman; I am cisgender. Who cares? Why would I take offense to this, let alone to the degree that I demand someone change the term?

Though there is a kind of delicious irony in watching the usual suspects who rail and scream about those darned "SJWs" "taking offense" to everything and how being offended means nothing and doesn't mean that anything has to be changed... ...taking offense to this term and demanding it be changed.

I would recommend you take their advice on every other topic (that doesn't affect them, personally) and ignore the offended, here.

I think you, and it seems a lot of other people here aren't really aware of what offended means.

No ones offended by it, maybe a rare few but not on a scale that you or half the other people in this thread are claiming. It's not that the word offends someone or not, it's that most of the time you see it used online it's used as an insult or a slur. Annoying? Yes. Offensive? No.

The delicious irony is everyone going on about how suddenly the anti-SJW crowd is getting all offended at the word. When no one actually is. People are just pointing out how it's commonly used now, instead of it's actual meaning.

You might have a point if, the vast majority of the time, the so-called "offended" "SJWs" weren't doing exactly the same thing: pointing out that the way a word is used has become an insult rather than its original meaning, and asking that you not use it because of said meaning. As it stands what's going on here is identical, and kind of hilarious.

I don't see a whole lot of "stop using that word!" more so "we get what the word means, you just sound like a tosser when you use it"

And yet there are numerous people here, if you actually read the thread, who think that cisgender = straight, or are angry that the word is used instead of simply "normal" or used at all. I'd highly suggest doing so.

 

[Ariseishirou]

It just means someone who isn't trans. It's accurate and descriptive, and in no way offensive or "grand-standing". I am a female-born person who identifies as a woman; I am cisgender. Who cares? Why would I take offense to this, let alone to the degree that I demand someone change the term?

Though there is a kind of delicious irony in watching the usual suspects who rail and scream about those darned "SJWs" "taking offense" to everything and how being offended means nothing and doesn't mean that anything has to be changed... ...taking offense to this term and demanding it be changed.

I would recommend you take their advice on every other topic (that doesn't affect them, personally) and ignore the offended, here.

I think you, and it seems a lot of other people here aren't really aware of what offended means.

No ones offended by it, maybe a rare few but not on a scale that you or half the other people in this thread are claiming. It's not that the word offends someone or not, it's that most of the time you see it used online it's used as an insult or a slur. Annoying? Yes. Offensive? No.

The delicious irony is everyone going on about how suddenly the anti-SJW crowd is getting all offended at the word. When no one actually is. People are just pointing out how it's commonly used now, instead of it's actual meaning.

You might have a point if, the vast majority of the time, the so-called "offended" "SJWs" weren't doing exactly the same thing: pointing out that the way a word is used has become an insult rather than its original meaning, and asking that you not use it because of said meaning. As it stands what's going on here is identical, and kind of hilarious.

I don't see a whole lot of "stop using that word!" more so "we get what the word means, you just sound like a tosser when you use it"

And yet there are numerous people here, if you actually read the thread, who think that cisgender = straight, or are angry that the word is used instead of simply "normal" or used at all. I'd highly suggest doing so.

That anger (and I use the term anger very loosely here) comes from the fact that everyone is all of a sudden offended when they use normal to refer to normal people. Because in their minds calling them abnormal, or not part of the norm is a personal attack against them.

People can use cisgendered as a label, but not normal?

As many, many other people have already pointed it out, again if you actually read the thread, "normal" is a subjective label, and thus worthless when a specific term is needed. Even if you define normal as "majority", then women should simply be called "normal" and men "men", Asians should be called "normal" and everyone else something specific, and so on. And yet, we don't do that. We don't even call another vast majority - straight people - "normal" we call them straight. Straight isn't an offensive term. Neither is heterosexual. It's precise, when "normal" isn't. Furthermore, as evidenced by the fact that we don't do it for women/Asians/etc. "normal" makes an implicit value judgement that straight/gay, cis/trans, Asian/white, male/female does not. Insisting on "normal" in one category because one is in the majority and not another is sheer hypocrisy.

But no, actually read the thread. This has already been gone over. As has everything I've mentioned so far. Until you do rehashing it is pointless.

What's actually happening here are named users I've seen show up in virtually every single thread about "SJWs" to berate them about being "offended" because they don't like how a term is used (see: "retarded", etc.) and telling them they don't have the right... taking offense to how this term is used (or not even understanding what the term means). It's hyprocrisy of the highest order.